In sport fishing the multiplier/bait casting reel (hereinafter “reel”) concept is well established. Certain current drawbacks, though, tempt anglers to often prefer spinning reels, especially when using light baits. The main aim of a cast is to reach the fish, often at long distance. This in turn takes great initial speed of the bait so it can reach, bringing the line along. Especially when light baits are used, air resistance, wind, sudden gusts, friction etc., quite fast and at times retards (and at cast end stops) a light bait's speed, while the reel spool, due to its initially given high momentum and inertia keeps its speed longer and more steady, and thus has to be timely actively braked, so the line on the spool shall not expand and entangle—“backlash”. By expert casters such braking is often done by the thumb on the spool, which takes experience, but is flexible and optimal in that spool speed can be instantly lowered just to prevent entangling, and then released so as not to put extra and continuous brake to the spool's rotation and thus speed of the pulling bait. Such expertness is however not with all anglers; and thus mechanical cast brakes have been devised, well known in the art, which mostly work by friction and/or magnetism, sometimes centrifugally effected. As is also known, this lacks the flexibility and instantaneousness of expert thumb control, so it cannot always eliminate backlash and will likely constantly apply a speed damping effect on the bait itself, so, especially when using light baits, cast length is restrained; and which all has led to mentioned preference for spinning reels, even though these may not “control” a fish so well and can twine the line after some fish “rushes” when the spool slip-rotates—“drags”.
There is lot of prior art aiming at solving this backlash problem, some all mechanical like U.S. Pat. No. 6,109,555, and some making use of computers like (a) U.S. Pat. No. 5,577,679; (b) U.S. Pat. No. 5,833,156; (c) U.S. Pat. No. 6,045,067; (d) U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,722; (e) U.S. Pat. No. 6,973,999; and (f) U.S. Pat. No. 6,983,907. As appreciated by all these latter, a computer is really an ideal device in this context, but if its input is inadequate, its output (result) will be imperfect. All make some use of rotation sensors, RPM, and match it with speed of the line, sensed by spots thereon and/or measuring of line-on-spool radius (a, b, c); various means (c) and tension of the line, determined by slope of the line (a, b), mechanically sensed (c, d, e, f) and/or calculated (e, f). Additionally, c, d, e and f also put a strong short, preventing brake pulse at or ‘just before’ maximum spool rotation speed; and (c) suggests detection of variable amount of light from an axial photo-emitter reaching a photo-detector after being reflected or absorbed by strands of rising line for assuming overrun.
Without going into detail, it seems that all of the above fail to give their employed computer apt real-time information to perfectly solve the backlash problem. Specifically re line tension, one problem is that the line tension is naught also when line and spool speed match. If that be the case, it can thus not be differentiated (since the line can not induce any perceptible “push”, only “pull”, and “slope” outside the reel seems inapt and too late) from an overrun condition and thus, if brake is applied assuming overrun, unnecessary braking may occur. By mathematics, (e) and (f) aim at solving this problem, but nevertheless a number of preset “patterns” are there in forehand selectable for different assumed/expected conditions to, off real-time, optimize the cast and forestall a backlash.
A backlash cannot however be fully predicted; it can occur anytime during a cast depending on varying and sometimes totally unexpected and sudden conditions/events that have to be met totally in real-time and not more or less preset. The parrying initial short brake “pulse” of ref. c, d, e and f, though, points out that the very onset of a cast is a common occasion, and which is also well recognized by the experienced “thumb-beaker” mentioned, who generally can handle this phase of a cast quite well, not normally then having to react to unexpected sudden incidents.
When the bait is released, it goes out instantly with full speed and the spool must go from total stand-still to maximum speed momentarily. This gives a snatch, actually giving spool a considerable over-speed (line is unstretchable, and tense since release is from the reel) at start. At the same time, the bait must surrender a fraction of its kinetic energy, the now only available energy of the system, to set the spool in motion, which moderates the snatch a bit, but also instantly reduces bait speed. In all, already from start there is a mismatch state in the cast. Furthermore, the diameter of line-on-spool is here at maximum, so distance to reel structures likely trigging entanglement if touched is minimal; hence this phase of a cast is really critical and also very fast. All this is expected by the (experienced) thumb-braker, who just has to supervise the (normal—if unexpected things, like bait hitting something, occur, human reaction time before taking apt remedying measures is far too long) course reflexively and thus immediately can apply, adjust and release the thumb-pressure to obtain the just enough brake. A mentioned automatic brake “pulse” in this phase, may be too strong, reducing cast length; or too weak, possibly leading to backlash and cannot alone avert sudden incidents; and the above-mentioned prior art assisting measures don't appear to be enough fast, susceptible and/or exact.
If the onset phase is successfully equalized and cast proceeds normally, probability of backlash is smaller, so initially mentioned “constant” braking methods are over-kills. One retarding factor even absent friction and these brakes, though, is the fact that spool-diameter reduces as cast proceeds, so if bait speed is to remain constant, spool rotation must increase. Absent some servo motoring this inevitably works like a de facto brake and reduces backlash probability. Also, distance to reel structures that might entangle if touched is gradually increasing, reducing backlash risk. Nevertheless, unforeseen and sudden backlash due to various mostly external and/or extraordinary factors (wind, friction, object-hits etc.) can occur also here, which has to be instantly and aptly attended to, and for which many more or less hypothetic and preset brake actions/patterns (or human reaction time) may not suffice.
The courses are very speedy here, which favors a computer employment, but input must be swift, apt and totally in real-time. So how does a backlash manifest itself? Whatever the underlying course, a backlash occurs when line expanding from the spool, due to the latter's over-speed touches the frame or other structures of the reel and cannot expand any more but becomes entangled. So build-up of line-diameter on spool is unambiguously indicative, qualitatively and quantitatively, of emerging backlash, whatever the occasioning spool rotation and line speed etc. happen to be. But it has to be properly and immediately sensed and evaluated in both quality and quantity in both time and size axis, to be of use as input to a computer, allowing same to take proper corrective measures in both strength and time.